In a message dated 12/1/2005 3:34:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think digital will *really* make a difference as and when the actual
media used in the camera becomes so low-cost and reliable that you won't
have to copy the data at all. (But I've probably mentioned that earlier,
too.)
I think it's insignificant enough now that the vast majority of RAW shooters
here consider it a non-issue.
Do they?
- Toralf
=======
Well, I haven't had a card fail, if that's what you mean. So I don't worry
about it. It's very reliable, but, yes, it could be cheaper.
Yeah, maybe they are reliable enough... I'm quite sure they are OK for
the temporary storage they are used for today, but would you trust them
to keep your images for years? What I meant was wouldn't it be nice if
you could just keep the data on the SDcard or whatever as backup instead
of writing to CD/DVD? And by that last question above I meant to imply
that even though many people seem to be reasonably happy with the way
they handle the files today, surely most would find working with digital
cameras even more convenient if they could just keep the in-camera media
"forever" instead of having the data transfer as a required step.
But I don't see how
what type of file format one shoots, RAW or JPEG, affects storage reliability.
Me neither. Except an uncompressed format is perhaps safer in the sense
that it is easier to recover *some* of the data even when the file fails
to read properly due to media error.
- Toralf
